Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Jones (2nd nomination)

Generation Jones

This is an article with one primary contributor who has inserted dozens of sources which all reference books or radio and television appearances by the same person. This article therefore appears to be well sourced, but in reality it is being used to promote one person's usage of this term and isn't necessarily notable, despite how often Mr. Pontell has used it in the media. There are no other third party sources which confirm the usage of this term other than Mr. Pontell, which indicates that this article fails NPOV. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- well researched by Cumulus Clouds. Some of the sources don't even mention the term. Reyk _YO! 20:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The above description of this article is blatantly innacurate. If you google "Generation Jones", you'll find hundreds of thousands of references to it (I just did, with 251,000 results). I just went through a bunch of them, and hardly any of them are of Pontell using the term. At least 90% of these references are third parties using the term Generation Jones. Among the third parties which I just found using this term are the magazines USNews and World Report and Newsweek, the newspapers The New York Times and The Washington Post (four seperate articles in The WP), and the TV networks NBC and CBS. These are just a small fraction of the thousands of media outlets that regularly use this term...all third parties, completely unconnected to Pontell (and the Wikipedia article is obviously the result of multiple contributors). Given the large, and increasing, interest and usage of this term, it should clearly not be deleted, but rather expanded.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by CurrentHistoryMatters (talk • contribs) 22:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the result of two editors, of which you are one and other is User:21st century Susan, whose only contributions are to that article. This is usually a dead giveaway for sockpuppetry or a conflict of interest, so I would caution any other editors against taking the "large interest" argument into account. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yet another blatantly incorrect piece of info from you, cumulus clouds...I just looked again at this article, and it clearly is the result of multiple editors. And where do you come off making accuasations of sockpuppetry? It seems to me that the bigger question here is what is your personal agenda against this? You seem to have little interest in the truth, and in what is right for Wikipedia, and instead seem focused on unwarranted attacks for personal reasons. Those of us who care about the Generation Jones movement (and there are many of us across the U.S.) are used to baseless attacks from those who have an agenda against this. There is a large Baby Boomer industry,for example, and as the Generation Jones movement gets increasingly widespread, it undermines those who have put out a shingle as a "Boomer expert". One who writes a book which claims expertise about Boomers, and uses the old (and increasingly obsolete) 1946-1964 definition of Boomers, is understandably not happy as that book becomes irrelevant. Is that what is beyond these baseless claims from you, cumulus clouds? Your behavior here does seem very suspicious. You claim to have done extensive research on this, and then say that "There are no other third party sources which confirm the usage of this term other than Mr. Pontell". If you actually had done even a small amount of research, you'd know that thousands of third party sources use the term Generation Jones. You ignore the comments of me and others who point out that what's relevant here is that Generation Jones is clearly notable, regardless of how it got that way. Frankly, the fact that you even nominated this article for deletion is quite telling in its own right: you may disagree with this concept or some aspects of it, but to suggest that this topic doesn't even warrent an article in Wikipedia is ridiculous. You haven't advanced any basis whatsoever for why this article should be deleted. You warn other editors "against taking the "large interest" argument into account" because of your conclusion that only a couple people have written this article. Even if this conclusion was correct (which it isn't), what does that have to do with the "large interest"?! You would have us ignore the 250,000 hits on Google for this term because you think only a couple people wrote this article. So the way we should determine whether a term is notable and should have an article on Wikipedia should not be based on widespread usage by major media, high-level politicians, etc., but instead should be based on how many people wrote a Wikipedia article?! I don't know what your agenda is, but it clearly isn't to improve Wikipedia with this disingenuous attempt to pretend that this term isn't notable.````

Keep. The large number of sources mentioning the term prove that it is notable, at least as a media concept, whether or not such a generation actually 'exists'. The fact that many or most of the references relate to a single person, Jonathan Pontell, does not make the subject non-notable. It may well be that all those mentions in the media (as well as this article itself) are the results of a highly successful self-promotion campaign by Mr. Pontell; but even so, that they exist means that the 'Generation Jones' concept has become notable and deserves our coverage. We should not be concerned with how a pop culture term becomes notable; only whether it is or isn't, and this term, as far as I can tell, clearly is.

As an aside, I personally have not heard of this term before encountering this article. However, having read it, I find it fully meets our inclusion criteria (WP:NOTE, WP:RS). I see nothing in the nomination that can be considered a valid reason for deletion. Terraxos (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep— The references look good (quite a few are of third party sources) and the article is notable as stated above (WP:NOTE, WP:RS, etc) Leonard^(Bloom) 22:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Not all the references are pertinent, but enough of them are to mean something. The page needs to be cleaned up and pertinent references kept, most references need to be scraped.PB666 ^yap 01:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]